Of the charters and corporations, to whose rights a few years ago these gentlemen were so tremblingly alive, they say, “that, when the people of England come to reflect upon them, they will, like France, annihilate those badges of oppression, those traces of a conquered nation.”

As to our monarchy, they had formerly been more tender of that branch of the Constitution, and for a good reason.  The laws had guarded against all seditious attacks upon it with a greater degree of strictness and severity.  The tone of these gentlemen is totally altered since the French Revolution.  They now declaim as vehemently against the monarchy as on former occasions they treacherously flattered and soothed it.

“When we survey the wretched condition of man under the monarchical and hereditary systems of government, dragged from his home by one power, or driven by another, and impoverished by taxes more than by enemies, it becomes evident that those systems are bad, and that a general revolution in the principle and construction of governments is necessary.

“What is government more than the management of the affairs of a nation?  It is not, and from its nature cannot be, the property of any particular man or family, but of the whole community, at whose expense it is supported; and though by force or contrivance it has been usurped into an inheritance, the usurpation cannot alter the right of things.  Sovereignty, as a matter of right, appertains to the nation only, and not to any individual; and a nation has at all times an inherent indefeasible right to abolish any form of government it finds inconvenient, and establish such as accords with its interest, disposition, and happiness.  The romantic and barbarous distinction of men into kings and subjects, though it may suit the condition of courtiers, cannot that of citizens, and is exploded by the principle upon which governments are now founded.  Every citizen is a member of the sovereignty, and, as such, can acknowledge no personal subjection, and his obedience can be only to the laws.”

Warmly recommending to us the example of Prance, where they have destroyed monarchy, they say,—­

“Monarchical sovereignty, the enemy of mankind, and the source of misery, is abolished; and sovereignty itself is restored to its natural and original place, the nation.  Were this the case throughout Europe, the cause of wars would be taken away.”

“But, after all, what is this metaphor called a crown? or rather, what is monarchy?  Is it a thing, or is it a name, or is it a fraud?  Is it ’a contrivance of human wisdom,’ or of human craft, to obtain money from a nation under specious pretences?  Is it a thing necessary to a nation?  If it is, in what does that necessity consist, what services does it perform, what is its business, and what are its merits?  Doth the virtue consist in the metaphor or in the man?  Doth the goldsmith that makes the crown make the virtue also?  Doth